Advertisement

The Theoretical Landscape of Service Design

  • Piia RytilahtiEmail author
  • Satu Miettinen
  • Hanna-Riina Vuontisjärvi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9186)

Abstract

This conference paper discusses the theoretical landscape of service design. It will illustrate how service design is situated in a discourse on design research and outline the theoretical background of this multidisciplinary approach from a constructive and generative research perspective. In this paper, the foundation for the conceptual service design framework is based on current debates in the field. Identification of the conceptual framework is based on an analysis of co-creating service design cases that were implemented at the Service Innovation Corner (SINCO) laboratory at the Faculty of Art and Design, University of Lapland. The conceptual framework presents five themes that are closely connected with service design: (1) design research, (2) value co-creation, (3) user experience, (4) learning, and (5) citizen engagement. Using the perspective of service design, this paper attempts to elucidate the effects of service design on development and innovation processes in private and public sectors.

Keywords

Service design Design research Value proposition 

References

  1. 1.
    Battarbee, K.: Co-experience: understanding user experiences in social interaction. Ph.D., University of Art and Design, Helsinki (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blomkvist, J.: Conceptualising prototypes in service design. Ph.D. Linköpings Universitet (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blyth, S., Kimbell, L.: Design Thinking and the Big Society: from Solving Personal Troubles to Designing Social Problems. Actant and Taylor Haig, London (2011). http://www.taylorhaig.co.uk/assets/taylorhaig_designthinkingandthebigsociety.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2015
  4. 4.
    Boyle, D., Harris, M.: The challenge of co-production. NESTA, UK (2009). http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/challenge-co-production. Accessed 3 Mar 2015
  5. 5.
    Boztepe, S.: Competing theories and models. Int. J. Des. 1(2), 57–65 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brown, T.: Design thinking. Harward Bus. Rev. 86(6), 84–92 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bürdek, B.E.: Design: History. Theory and Practice of Product Design. Birkhäuser, Basel (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coughlan, P., Fulton, S.J., Canales, K.: Prototypes as (design) tools for behavioral and organizational change: a design-based approach to help organizations change work behaviors. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 43(1), 1–13 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferrance, E.: Themes in Education: Action Research. Brown University, US (2000). http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/themes_ed/act_research.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2015
  10. 10.
    Fulton, S.: Informing our intuition: design research for radical innovation. Rotman Magazine, (Winter), 53–55 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gould, J.D., Lewis, C.: Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28(3), 300–311 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grönroos, C.: Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? Eur. Bus. Rev. 20(4), 298–314 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanington, B.: Methods in the making: a perspective on the state of human research in design. Des. Issues 19, 9–18 (2003). (4, Autumn 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holmlid, S., Evenson, S.: Bringing service design to service sciences, management and engineering. In: Hefley, B., Murphy, W. (eds.) Service Sciences, Management and Engineering: Education for the 21st Century, pp. 341–345. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horne, M., Shirley, T.: Coproduction in Public Services: A New Partnership with Citizens. Cabinet Office, Strategy Unit, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Standards Office (ISO9241‐210) International Standard: Ergonomics of human‐system Interaction – Part 210: Human‐centred design for interactive systems. First Version 2010‐03‐15. ISO 9241‐210:2010 (E). ISO, Geneva (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jäppinen, T.: Kunta ja käyttäjälähtöinen innovaatiotoiminta. Kunnan ja kuntalaisen vuo-rovaikutus palveluja koskevassa päätöksenteossa ja niiden uudistamisessa. Helsinki: Suomen Kuntaliitto (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jäppinen, T., Miettinen, S.: Service designing Finland – From policy to action. Touchpoint 7(1), (Forthcoming, 2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jordan, P.W.: Designing Pleasurable Products. An Introduction to the New Human Factors. Taylor & Francis, London (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Juninger, S.: Public foundations of service design. In: Miettinen, S., Valtonen, A. (eds.) 2012 Service Design with Theory. Discussions on Change, Value and Methods, pp. 18–24. Lapland University Press (LUC), Rovaniemi (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kasanen, E., Lukka, K., Siitonen, A.: Konstruktiivinen tutkimusote: luonne, prosessi ja arviointi. In: Rolin, K., Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M., Henttonen, E. (eds.) Soveltava yhteiskuntatiede ja filosofia, pp. 111–133. Gaudeamus, Helsinki (1993)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keinonen, T.: Design contribution square. Adv. Eng. Inform. 23, 142–148 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kolb, D.A.: Experiential Larning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall with Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1984)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., Wensveen, S.: Design Research Through Practice. From the Lab Field and Showroom. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kurvinen, E.: Prototyping Social Action. PdD. University of Art and Design, Helsinki (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuure, E., Miettinen, S.: Considerations of common good in the co-design with publics - workshops as a tool for individual empowerment. In: Nordes 2015, Design Ecologies, vol. 6 (Forthcoming, 2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuure, E., Miettinen, S.: Learning through action: introducing the innovative simulation and learning environment Service Innovation Corner (SINCO). In: E-Learn (World Conference on E-Learning 2013), 21–24 October, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kuure, E., Lindström, A.: The voices of the users - How technology can help in co-innovation. In: Farias, L.P., Calvera, A., da Costa, B.M., Schincariol, Z. (eds.) Design Frontiers: Territories, Concepts and Technologies, Proceedings of the ICDHS 2012, 3–6 September, Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp. 391–395. Edgard Blücher Ltda (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuzmina, K., Bhamra, T., Triminghan, R.: Service design and its role in changing education. In: Miettinen, S., Valtonen, A. (eds.) 2012, Service Design with Theory. Discussions on Change, Value and Methods, pp. 27–36. Lapland University Press, Rovaniemi (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mead, G.H.: Essays in Social Psychology. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (2001)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miettinen, S., Kuure, E.: Designing a multi-channel service experience. Design Management Review. The Changing Nature of Service & Experience Design 24(3), 30–37 (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miettinen, S., Rontti, S., Kuure, E., Lindström, A.: Realizing design thinking through a service design process and an innovative prototyping laboratory – Introducing Service Innovation Corner (SINCO). In: Israsena, P., Tangsantikul, J., Durling, D. (eds.) 2012. Design Research Society 2012, Conference Proceedings, Bangkok, vol.3, pp. 1202–1214 (2012)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miettinen, S., Rytilahti, P., Vuontisjärvi, H., Kuure, E., Rontti, S.: Experience design in digital services. REBCE (Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe) 6(1), 29–50 (2014)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Finland.: Demand and user-driven innovation policy Helsinki, Finland. [e-report] Publications of the MEE: Innovation 48/2010 (2010). https://www.tem.fi/files/27547/Framework_and_Action_Plan.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2015
  36. 36.
    Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., Mulgan, G.: The open book of social innovation [e-book] NESTA with The Young Foundation (2010). http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_open_book_of_social_innovation.pdf. Accessed 3 Mar 2015
  37. 37.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Parker, S., Heapy, J.: The journey to the interface: How public service design can connect users to reform. [e-book] Demos, London (2006). http://www.demos.co.uk/files/journeytotheinterface.pdf?1240939425. Accessed 3 Mar 2015
  39. 39.
    Pestoff, V.: Innovations in public services: co-production and new public governance in europe. In: Botero, A., Paterson, A.G., Saad-Sulonen, J. (eds.) 2012. Towards Peer Production in Public Services: Cases From Finland, pp. 13–33. Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Department of Media, Helsinki (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pöyry-Lassila, P., Teräväinen, H.: Yhteiskehittämisen yleisiä ja yhteisiä periaatteita. In: Smeds, R., Krokfors, L., Ruokamo, H., Staffans, A. (eds.) InnoSchool - Välittävä koulu. Oppimisen verkostot, ympäristöt ja pedagogiikka. SimLab Report Series 31, pp. 17–21. The Aalto University School of Science and Technology, Helsinki (2010)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rontti, S., Miettinen, S., Kuure, E., Lindström, A.: A laboratory concept for service prototyping – service Innovation Corner (SINCO). In: ServDes2012 (Service Design and Innovation Conference), 8–10 February, Helsinki, Finland (2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sanders, E.B.: Design research in 2006. Des. Res. Q. 1(1), 1–8 (2006)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sanders, E.B., Stappers, P.J.: Co-creation and new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1), 5–18 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sangiorgi, D.: Value co-creation in design for services. In: Miettinen, S., Valtonen, A. (eds.) Service Design with Theory. Discussions on Change, Value and Methods, pp. 95–104. Lapland University Press (LUC), Rovaniemi (2012)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    The House of Commons, UK.: User involvement in public services. UK. [e-report] The House of Commons: Public Administration Select Committee (2008). http://www.parliament.uk/pasc. Accessed 3 July 2012
  46. 46.
    Thomas, E.: Innovation by Design in the Public Services. Solace Foundation, London (2008)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tuomela, R.: The Philosophy of Social Practices: A Collective Acceptance View. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Why “service”? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 25–38 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Service-dominant logic: what it is, what it is not, what it might be. In: Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F. (eds.) The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions, pp. 43–56. Routledge, New York (2006). First published by M.E. Sharpe Inc.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: The four services marketing myths: Remnants from a manufacturing model. J. Serv. Res. 6, 324–335 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    von Hippel, E.: Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wetter-Edman, K.: Relations and rationales of user’s involvement in service design and service management. In: Miettinen, S., Valtonen, A. (eds.) Service Design with Theory. Discussions on Change, Value and Methods, pp. 105–114. Lapland University Press (LUC), Rovaniemi (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Piia Rytilahti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Satu Miettinen
    • 1
  • Hanna-Riina Vuontisjärvi
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Art and DesignUniversity of LaplandRovaniemiFinland

Personalised recommendations